GR L 5304; (April, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5304 to L-05324; April 30, 1954
SMITH BELL & CO., LTD., and INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD. and/or MANILA TERMINAL CO., INC., ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The cases are appeals from an order of dismissal for failure to prosecute. They involve actions for recovery of indemnity for lost or damaged cargo, commenced in the Court of First Instance of Manila in 1947. The cases remained inactive for an unreasonable length of time and were ordered dismissed on August 4, 1951, under Section 3 of Rule 30 of the Rules of Court. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was denied. Appellants argued that under Rules 31, it is the clerk of court’s duty to include a case in the trial calendar after issues are joined, not the plaintiff’s duty to fix the trial date. They also offered justifications for the delay, including the large number of cases (over 500), attempts to arrange test cases, the unfinished trial of alleged test cases due to the promotion of the presiding judge and pendency of treason cases, and the recent assignment of all cases to a specific branch where the deputy clerk had begun setting them for trial. Appellees countered that no agreement on test cases existed, the trial of the alleged test cases had resumed before a successor judge prior to dismissal, treason cases were no impediment, and the clerk’s recent scheduling did not excuse plaintiffs’ earlier failure to seek trial.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the cases for failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time.
RULING
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute rests upon the sound discretion of the court, and every presumption favors the correctness of its action. The duty of the clerk of court under Rule 31 does not relieve the plaintiff of the duty to prosecute the case diligently. If the clerk is negligent, it is the plaintiff’s duty to call the court’s attention to it. The explanations for delay offered by appellants were not believed by the trial judge and were refuted by appellees. The record does not clearly show that plaintiffs made a diligent and persistent effort to expedite the suits. Their last-minute attempt to place the cases on the trial calendar three or four years after issues were joined, near the date of the dismissal order, did not strengthen their position. The order of dismissal is affirmed.